KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Ravishankar, Judicial Member and
Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member
Branch Manager, State Bank of India – Appellant
versus
Harish Gudigar – Respondent
First Appeal No.840 of 2021
Decided on 2.4.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Banking – Savings Account – Fraudulent withdrawal – District Consumer Commission allowed complaint along with compensation and litigation expenses – Respondent after transaction, immediately approached bank, FIR was also lodged, then it is duty of appellant to take necessary steps to detect fraud and shall deposit money which was transferred to third person by negligence of bank or its officials – As per circular of RBI regarding limited liability of customers in cases of Internet transfer, RBI fixed zero liability upon bank customers – Order passed by District Consumer Commission is just and proper – No interference is required. (Paras 12 and 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member—This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2021 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Udupi in CC.No.08/2020 and prays to set aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant submits that he was a SB account holder with the State Bank of India at Malleshwaram Branch in Bengaluru. In the month of February, 2019, he had requested the branch to transfer his SB savings and all FDs held in his name to SBI branch at Santhekatte in Udupi as he was moving to Udupi to start his own business. Accordingly the Malleshwaram Branch of SBI had transferred the SB savings and all FDs to the SBI Santhekatte branch, Udupi. On 23.8.2019 at 8.19 a.m. the complainant received message on his mobile “Thx for INB txn of Rs.500000.00 from A/c X8985 to Parnav Onl....Ref#IGAGVTYJC8 on 23rd Aug.19 and on the same day another same SMS at 8.49 a.m. received to the complainant “Thx for INB txn of Rs.50010/- from A/c X8985 to Parnav Onl..... Ref#IGAGVU-AEC3”. If not done forward these SMS to 9223008333 to block INB or call 1800111109". After seeing another message the complainant opened his online account and balance amount was showing just Rs.6360/-. Immediately he transferred the remaining amount to his HDFC bank account. Thereafter the complainant contacted the Santhekatte branch Manager and gave a complaint in writing. The branch manager after verifying the messages gave the information that an amount of Rs.4,50,010/- had been transferred by closing his FD account. These transactions had been done through Paytm and the money has been transferred to somebody at SBI, Delhi Branch and advised to file an FIR with the Cyber policy, Udupi. Accordingly the complainant filed an FIR and got FIR No.0081/2019 with the Cyber Police at Udupi Station and also the details of the FIR were published in a local daily “Udayavani” on 25-8-2019 under the heading “Bank FDgu Kanna”. Subsequently the complainant had personally visited the bank on 20-12-2019 to file his request letter to refund the deposit amounting to Rs.1,13,126/- which had already matured on 5-9-2019. At that time the branch manager had handed over him the letter which say that the CMS team on 6.12.2019 had closed and the fraud has happened due to customers negligence and hence the customer will be liable to bear the entire loss arising out from those transactions. To reply to his letter the complainant personally handed over letter dated 21-12-2019 to the Bank Manager, SBI Santhekatte branch, Udupi as sought for explanation that how this negligence happened from his side as the original deposit receipts were with him?. However, till date the bank has not replied to the said letter. On 23-1-2020 the complainant personally handed over another letter to the Branch Manager to arrange to return the FD money immediately as he needed the money urgently, so far there is no response has been received by the Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed version and denied the allegations made by the complainant and contended that the Opposite Party will give all the Co-operation to the complainant to trace the culprit and retrieve the amount if possible. Further as the Delhi Commercial Branch of the State Bank of India was already informed of the matter and the amount in question was already transferred to the account of Paytm of Mr.Parnav. Further the Opposite Party contended that the complainant has shared his INB username and INB password with some strangers resulting in the installation of “SBI Secure OTP” App and its misuse. It is beyond the powers of the Opposite Party to retrieve the amount in question. Hence the Opposite Party is not liable to pay back the same to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part
It is responsibility of Bank to compensate its customers in cases of fraudulent withdrawals.
The court affirmed that customers have zero liability for unauthorized transactions if reported within three working days, as per RBI guidelines, and found the bank liable for failing to secure the a....
Banks must prove customer negligence to deny liability for unauthorized transactions; mere downloading of an app does not constitute negligence.
“Since the Bank after following the due procedure, transferred the fund through net banking, any deficiency in service on part of Bank ruled out.”
The court ruled that consumer commissions lack jurisdiction over disputes involving fraudulent transactions, emphasizing that responsibility for account security lies with the customer.
Bank is bound to send SMS to customers regarding ATM transactions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.